It was inevitable that the global debate on allowing same-sex couples to marry would generate an intersecting debate on what marriage is for. Only by determining the purpose of marriage, can we decide if same-sex partnerships fulfil that purpose.

David Novak's contribution to this debate is a comprehensively-stated case for excluding same-sex couples because they cannot fit what he deduces marriage ought to be. Novak's case is important in the Australian context because almost all the serious-minded opponents of marriage equality in this country espouse some part of his thesis.

The Catholic Bishops share Novak's belief that marriage pre-exists the state and cannot be changed.

Many Protestant pastors agree with Novak that marriage is fragile and vulnerable and should not be changed.

Like Novak, most of Australia's marriage equality opponents believe marriage and same-sex relationships are chalk and cheese, and pine for a largely mythical and sometimes frightening past when marriage was what they want it to be.

Where Novak differs is the depth of his argument, and the fact he responds to common critiques of this argument, making a response to his case a crucial part of the Australian marriage equality debate.

Transcending the state

To establish that marriage is his to define, Novak must first seize it back from those who define it now - namely, the state and society - and invest it with some kind of inherent meaning that is not subject to the contingencies of time and place:

"The state inherited marriage from traditions that predate the founding of the state. These traditions are pre-political in the way culture precedes secular society and its polity, and in many ways transcends them."

Novak isn't simply distinguishing between marriage as law and marriage as it is practiced in everyday life.

He is creating a kind of theoretical "state of nature" for marriage and family from which the state, faith, society and, not least, the complexities of everyday experience have been removed, and reason alone, his reason, prevails.

It's tempting to see Novak's point about the pre-existence of marriage as a disingenuous way to re-introduce the concept of God into the debate only paragraphs after Novak assured us that he has not deduced his position "from authoritative theological propositions."

Talk of marriage as "God-ordained" has a strictly limited audience. This is probably why the aforementioned Bishops declare their opposition to same-sex marriage is based on a concept of "Universal Natural Law" that has nothing to do with the Bible, even though the former confirms their version of the latter in almost every way.

But let's take Novak at his non-theological word - the state can correct heterosexual marriage, say, by removing legal inequities formerly suffered by women, but it cannot extend marriage to include same-sex couples.

The example he uses to explain this distinction is instructive.

He argues that public schools are created by the state to ensure an educated citizenry, so it was perfectly legitimate for the state to de-segregate schools in the 1960s. But because marriage as an inherently heterosexual union "pre-exists," the state is exceeding its power to remove discrimination by allowing same-sex couples to marry.

In fact, education and marriage have more in common than Novak concedes. For most of western history both were regulated by the church and/or parents. Generally, only the wealthy were formally educated or had their marriages legally recognised.

Only in the modern period did the state assume control over education and legal marriage and extend both to all classes of people.

Education of the young "pre-exists" the state no less than marriage does. The state's removal of discrimination in one is no more or less legitimate than the removal of discrimination from the other.

Of course, the other parallel is that marriage was also racially segregated until the 1960s, both in the United States and in parts of Australia.

Supporters of the ban on inter-racial marriages declared that allowing such unions would destroy marriage and society because they offended against God and/or Nature's plan. Similar rhetoric was deployed by defenders of the legally-entrenched domination of husbands over their wives.

But they were wrong. Far from being undermined by these challenges to its "traditional definition," marriage benefited from no longer being a vehicle for prejudice.

Clearly, the state and society can and do legitimately reform marriage to better reflect values like equality and fairness.

"The only true reason"

Does same-sex marriage fit this historic pattern of reform? Will it benefit marriage or render it meaningless as Novak suggests?

Having attempted intellectually to sequester marriage, Novak then attempts to invest it with what he believes is its one obvious purpose - and the only legitimate purpose for the state's involvement in marriage - the begetting and raising of children.

He dodges the obvious response that heterosexuals who are infertile can marry by declaring the law is only made "for what usually obtains."

But this is hard to accept. If, as Novak says, "procreation combined with child rearing is the only true public reason for marriage" then marriage law would impose some expectation or obligation on heterosexual partners to procreate.

Instead, it is completely silent about fertility and child-rearing.

It is a double-standard to exclude same-sex couples from marriage on the basis of a principle that doesn't apply in any way to those heterosexual couples who can marry.

Of course, there is a cultural association between marriage and children, and this is where Novak turns next.

Having married parents can provide children with legal, social and emotional stability, security and recognition. But this is an argument for allowing same-sex marriages, given that ever more same-sex couples are raising children and ever more research shows these children are fairing as well as their peers.

So, not surprisingly, this is not the association between marriage and children that Novak has in mind.

He argues that children have a need and a right to be raised by their biological father and mother. For Novak the idea of two people of the same sex raising a child is

"unnatural, inasmuch as a woman is now represented to function as the children's new 'father', or a man is now represented to function as the children's new 'mother'."

This is a common argument from opponents of marriage equality. It seems so self-evident that children do better with a father and a mother that opponents of equality rarely bother to present sound empirical evidence to back up the claim. Novak is no exception.

He dismisses empirical evidence about parenting outcomes mentioned above as an irrelevant argument based on "utility." Clearly, not even science can stand against the elegant, unbending abstractions Novak prefers.

Where Novak differs with most of those who share his view is that he draws the logical conclusion, not only that homosexual adoption should be discouraged and same-sex co-parents go legally unrecognised, but that artificial reproductive technology involving two women or two men is a "conspiracy" to deprive children of their biological parents and should not be legally permitted.

At this point most Australians would probably turn away. In this country, same-sex partners have access to the same fertility services, and increasingly to the same parental recognition, as heterosexual couples.

But this isn't the only alarming aspect of Novak's argument about marriage and children. Despite drawing out the implications of his hostility to same-sex parenting, he conspicuously fails to define exactly what the specialist "functions" of a father and a mother are.

Do fathers teach football rules and firearm use? Perhaps they impose discipline and model emotional stoicism? If so, they are only needed at nights and weekends. The rest of the time they can go to work and provide.

Are mothers more likely to have the patience to change nappies, the delicacy to darn baby clothes and the instinct to nurture? If so, it's probably best for them to stay at home in order to fulfil their "natural function."

Opponents of marriage equality never explain why a child needs a male and female parent because they know their argument is inherently sexist. It judges each of us, not on the basis of our individual character, morality, skills or experience, but simply on the basis of our gender.

When taken to its logical extension the father/mother argument would be no more palatable to the majority of people than the biblical God opponents of equality carefully avoid mentioning.

Perhaps because he is aware of this, Novak declares his opposition to some of the grosser legal inequalities that once prevailed between husbands and wives, for example a wife being "considered an appendage to her husband in matters of domestic property."

But his out-dated values also emerge elsewhere, including in his apparent opposition to a woman's right to choose an abortion and his desire to eliminate no-fault divorce in order to protect children.

It doesn't seem to matter to Novak that women have been the main beneficiaries of removing fault-based divorce, or that a child may suffer far more from the loveless, emotionally abusive marriage of her parents, than from their divorce.

"The expressive aspect of marriage"

But there is a much more important problem with Novak's equation of marriage with children than the lack of science or the abundance of sexism he deploys when drawing the link.

The problem is that marriage is about more than children. Novak refers to these other features of marriage using terms coined by Martha Nussbaum, the pro-equality academic with whom he takes issue. They are marriage's "expressive aspect": "sexual relations, friendship and companionship, love, conversation and mutual responsibility."

I can't see how Novak can so blithely separate these from child rearing. Surely, a healthy relationship between parents is the foundation upon which a healthy relationship between parents and child is built?

If the state has an interest in recognising marriage because it is good for kids, then it has an interest in the "expressive aspect" of marriage for the same reason.

More than this, the state has an interest in the "expressive aspect" of marriage for the sake of partners in that marriage.

The study of marriage and its impacts on the health, wealth and happiness of partners has grown so much in the last decade it is almost a discipline in its own right.

What marriage studies have shown is that, compared to singles or unmarried partners, married couples tend (a) to live longer, healthier lives, (b) to rely more on each other rather than the state in times of personal crisis and (c) to experience a greater sense of belonging, security and happiness.

How is it not in the interest of the state to legally recognise, entitle and protect marriages when being married offers these benefits?

David Novak is obviously someone who values tradition. This makes it all the more puzzling that when he came to define marriage he failed to consider the definition that is the most traditional of all, but which also echoes the contemporary studies I have mentioned and can still be heard from the lips of marrying partners when they vow:

"to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part."

If an ideal marriage is about one thing, it is about the enduring conjugal love that mutually sustains two people through their lives. From this everything else about marriage springs, including the care of children. There is nothing in this old but self-renewing definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples.

The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage also looks odd when we consider the ways in which marriage has responded to modern notions of gender equality and personal choice.

In law, and increasingly in practice, matrimony is now the union of two legally-equal, autonomous adults who are responsible for the choice of if and when to marry, the choice of how to conduct their marriage, and the choice of if and when to end it.

Indeed, it is precisely this element of equality and choice in marriage that prompts debate on same-sex marriage. Only when wives and husbands are legally, socially and economically equal does it make sense for there to be a marriage of two husbands or two wives. Only when marriage is a choice for the heterosexual majority does the denial of that choice to the homosexual minority become an issue.

Seen from this perspective it is not same-sex couples who seek to re-define marriage. Both the enduring, core meaning of marriage, and marriage in its generally-accepted modern manifestation, can readily embrace us.

It is people like Novak who seek to redefine marriage according to abstract principles, unrealistic norms and oppressive expectations that the majority of Australians would find out-dated and alien.

Why Novak and his counterparts do this, I cannot say. Perhaps they are redefining marriage to shut out same-sex couples, or perhaps they are using the same-sex marriage debate to legitimise their inflexible, idealised vision for marriage?

Either way, the fact that redefining marriage is their chief response to the demand for marriage equality shows how impoverished their case against equality really is.

Rodney Croome AM is an honourary lecturer in sociology at the University of Tasmania. His most recent book, co-authored by Bill Muehlenberg, is on Gay Marriage for the Why vs. Why series (Pantera Press, 2010).

Actions

Share

Comments (65)

Michael :

07 Sep 2012 3:49:21pm

Rodney, you have a truely peculiar idea of what pertains to sexism. To say that a persons sex has nothing to do with sex and procreation is an absurdity. Sexism is where people imply qualities to someone in performing a task or function that should logically have nothing to do with their sex. People of both sexes should have equal rights to jobs, pay, promotion, the law, respect. etc.etc. To exclude a persons sex from matters pertaining to sex defies reason. From reading what you say I would have to assume you are not a parent. Mothers carry a child for nine months, give painful birth and usually breast feed their children. The maternal instinct is very different to the paternal one. Fathers give up their time and income and try to develop their children and provide for their family as best they can. Parenting is hard work and marriage too. One of the many problems with your claims is that, in suggesting that marriage is just a commitment between two people, you give no credit to family building. You say that now, in modern times, we can artificially inseminate people and so this arguement is irrelevent but do you really think that is so? Until you experience wonders such as, despite your daughter being very beautiful, you are not sexually attracted to her (normally) or a mother's instinct to defend her offspring to the death or countless other experiences, I really don't think you know what you are talking about. SSM is nothing to do with equality, it is to do with pretending something is something that it is not and pushing that pretence, by law, onto everyone else. The problem arises because this impinges on a number of actual rights of people such as the rights of children, religious and cultural freedoms, the right to have our laws reflect the truth and my right to have marriage properly respected and not treated as simply a commitment. There are so many anomalies and misconceptions in your statements it could fill a book.

Pam :

05 Dec 2011 9:18:05am

Some progress now that Federal Labor will take this issue to parliament for a "conscience vote". It's clear a number of parliamentarians are personally affected by this issue, mirroring the wider community. I have to wonder if factional heavies have any influence on conscience votes. I pray not.

Martin Snigg :

01 Dec 2011 3:54:59pm

This is strange. One could conclude that Mr Croome has never heard of nominalism nor realism. If so this is an inadequate basis from which to helpfully contribute. Mr Croome seems to merely assume a discredited nominalism and lambast realism as if we would not notice. Realism, or something like it, must be true for science to be carried out or for us even to communicate.

If his nominalism is true, things really have no nature - essence shared by every instance of the thing. That is, nominalism is the belief that there are no universals, things that exist in some way independent of individual human minds. So on nominalism physical scientific laws aren't really universal they only exist in minds, concepts expressed using language don't point to really existing entities but are just conventional, so 'marriage' can mean what individuals say it means, 'exclusion', 'conjugal love', 'equality' etc don't have a real meaning other than what language users want them to mean. So why should we listen to nominalists when it seems they are only expressing their particular desires rather than persuading us to see the world as it really is? How can we hear them talk about justice and equity if these concepts aren't features of really existing human societies?

If I said there was no order in the world apart from the one I gave to it, who could take me seriously? If I said the intricate, delicate and interdependent ecosystems of a rainforest weren't really there in the world but only in my mind - that a 'state of nature' was mythical - I'd be laughed at. So why does Mr Croome expect to be taken seriously when he denies a kind of natural ecosystem that arises out of the sexual relations between men and women? They quite naturally meet and quite naturally produce children and so a society of these unions quite naturally forms itself institutions and social practices that nurture this natural state. It needs no government fiat to define it into existence, it found it that way.

Homosexual sexual partnerships are just different. How could we argue against that? They by nature do not produce children so their norms and requirements will be different. Who is Mr Croome trying to convince when he says homosexuals really want to adopt the norms characteristic of distinctive male-female relations? The overwhelming consensus from gays is that monogamy, life long commitment, and the family values that border and protect child rearing are bourgeois - merely customary and serve settled power interests. This is quite a change of tune. I could be forgiven for thinking it is a cynical ploy to follow through on their belief in the evil of marriage by attempting to employ the state to arrogate to itself a power it does not have and legally dismantle the natural institution of marriage.

rob1966 :

02 Dec 2011 10:41:22am

And there we have it, the crux of your opposition to same-sex marriage: "I could be forgiven for thinking it is a cynical ploy to follow through on their belief in the evil of marriage by attempting to employ the state to arrogate to itself a power it does not have and legally dismantle the natural institution of marriage."

No substantive basis. No reason. No logic.

Just an irrational belief that gays (and lesbians) are out to dismantle society as we know it by getting married.

But please, stop calling it "the natural institution of marriage"; there is nothing "natural" about it at all. Marriage is nothing more than a human construct that permits a couple to demonstrate their lasting love for each other in a committed, monogamous relationship.

You demean homosexuals by claiming they are promiscuous; yet then in the next sentence deny them the means to demonstrate that they are not.

Martin Snigg :

02 Dec 2011 2:41:13pm

Rob fair dinkum. That's just bizarre - you've simply ignored my entire argument from which I speculated 'could be forgiven for thinking' in other words Mr Croome's arguments were defective, I gave my reasons, then allowed myself the latitude to speculate why he allowed himself to be mislead.

And simply restating that marriage is not grounded in the order of things but contrived by human actors is no rebuttal either - it is restatement in the guise of rebuttal.

Of course the overwhelming majority of same sex attracted people aren't interested in monogamy or life long commitment. These are features of heterosexual relationships because of the children involved. Gay activists quickly seperate marriage and children, are you saying those gays who actually do want to 'marry' will adopt the norms of heterosexuals?

It's not what they say in their manifestos. This open letter is signed by the leading gay activists from around the world. http://beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

-We will accept no imposed norms on our lifestyle."LGBT communities have ample reason to recognize that families and relationships know no borders and will never slot narrowly into a single existing template."

-Marriage is part of the evil patriarchy."The Right’s anti-LGBT position is only a small part of a much broader conservative agenda of coercive, patriarchal marriage promotion that plays out in any number of civic arenas in a variety of ways."

-We don't want to marry we want taxpayers to support our lifestyle as if we were married."This bad news is further complicated by a segment of LGBT movement strategy that focuses on same-sex marriage as a stand-alone issue. Should this strategy succeed, many individuals and households in LGBT communities will be unable to access benefits and support opportunities that they need because those benefits will only be available through marriage, if they remain available at all."

Gay activists want everyone to honour and subsidise their lifestyle choice independent of the legitimate and overwhelming national interest the state has in marriage of producing and rearing well the next generation. (Something traditional marriage does extremely effectively and cheaply).

In every way our society cannot afford to redefine and legislate marriage away, besides the fact the state has no power to do so. If marriage is not a natural institution then the state isn't either - in the very act of promulgating such a legal fiction it undermines its own claim to authority.

Martin Snigg :

04 Dec 2011 9:27:23pm

For the seventh time. Exceptions don't make the rule, for which, it is foolish to legislate.

The rational ground of the law is not affected by couples who experience infertility. In principle you could conceive absent a physical defect. Sterile unions by nature cannot. To not take reality as we find it seriously in this way is . . . well it hadn't happened since before Aristotle. (and after Locke!)

Steely Dan :

07 Dec 2011 11:19:30am

"Do you mean male-female sexual relations aren't characterised by norms?"Of course they are. Nearly everything we do as a society is characterised by norms. Point being?

This is an odd way of avoiding the fact that you cannot show any evidence for this claim: "Of course the overwhelming majority of same sex attracted people aren't interested in monogamy or life long commitment"...

in-deed ian :

12 Mar 2014 4:22:27pm

'Between April 1, 2001 and January 1, 2011, 15,000 same-sex couples were legally wed. According to an article on the Radio Netherlands website, 20% of the 55,000 gay couples in the Netherlands are now married. In the same period of time, there have been 761,000 heterosexual marriages. In total there are 4.1 million straight couples in the Netherlands, 80% of whom are married.'http://www.euronews.com/2013/04/01/reflecting-on-12-years-of-gay-marriage-in-the-netherlands/

dave :

01 Dec 2011 4:33:56am

As with any form of anti-social behaviour, homosexuality exists at varying degrees upon a continuum for each person. No one is born a homosexual, as is no one born an alcoholic or a thief. Society should not be promoting such behaviour by advocating homosexual marriage as it should not promote alcoholism by attempting to normalise it appease those who claim to be born that way. There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise as social science, psychology, sociology and the like are not scientific areas of study; despite many people trying to pass them off as science. In short, it is our responsibility as a civilised society to avoid the normalisation of such behaviour.

Steely Dan :

01 Dec 2011 11:55:58am

"As with any form of anti-social behaviour"How is homosexulaity 'anti-social'? Surely the only sexualities that could possibly be considered anti-social those that involve sexual relations with non-humans, inanimate objects or the dead. Surely craving contact with another human being is a pro-social desire.

"No one is born a homosexual, as is no one born an alcoholic or a thief"Source please. And it's also a terrible analogy, as you're confusing actions with desire.

"There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwiseas social science, psychology, sociology and the like are not scientific areas of study"If that were true, there would be no scientific evidence supporting your position on homosexuality either. Also, you may want to do some investigation as to what social scientists actually do.

dave :

02 Dec 2011 2:25:47am

Any behaviour that attempts to break down the basic building block of society (i.e. the nuclear family) can be considered anti social.

I do not claim scientific evidence supporting my position, rather common sense. I do not need a homosexual person with a sociology doctorate in the homosexual activities of fruit flies, trying to pass the nonsense off as science, to justify my predetermined opinion on the topic. Only the physical sciences deal with scientific absolutes, whilst the natural sciences are man's attempts to quantify and classify the world around him. As for the sociology etc, they are just areas of study made up for people who wanted to be academics but lacked the intellect to study anything requiring genuine intelligence.

What is the difference between actions and desire? Does an alcoholic not desire a drink? Or the thief desire a new plasma TV? Perhaps it is your analogy that is terrible?

Rhino :

02 Dec 2011 9:12:21am

@Dave

The most basic building block of society is an individual. You can have a sociey of individuals, but you cant reduce an individual to something smaller (well you can, but we don't work very well as individual parts).

As for your random spray against people studying softer sciences: Why the bile and hatred? Not all the advances in our society have come from Einstein or Steve Hawking contemplating the fundamental nature of an atom or a black hole.

Martin Snigg :

04 Dec 2011 12:19:08pm

@Rhino: that individualism requires philosophical support. It stands on Locke's metaphysics which no one takes seriously today. But that is human wilfulness, we keep pressing on in error because we want to - and suffer the consequences.

Remember in the social and political order there is no individual without a family, groups, culture and city or political authority. Aristotle showed that wholes - the city and the family were prior in importance to the individual man. E.g. a wall is a part of a house. The wall exists temporally before the whole house, it's a needed part in creating the whole. But it's the whole, the house, that gives purpose to its part, the wall; hence, the wall is temporally prior, while the house is ontologically prior.

Rhino :

06 Dec 2011 9:30:51am

@Martin Snigg

Always with philosophy, maybe you should read my statement in simple English and not as some deep statement. Irrespective, my statement requires no strand of philosophy as it stands on evidence and example.

There are examples here on the ABC website of asylum seekers who have lost their whole family when a boat has sunk on its way to Australia. They have no family, but they contribute to society as an individual. This is one example. You can think of more if you tried.

As to what is more valuable to society, I am not interested in that as my reply to Dave was to point out the factual error in his comments.

Steely Dan :

02 Dec 2011 10:03:15am

"I do not claim scientific evidence supporting my position, rather common sense"Which is perfect code for 'I cannot justify my position with evidence'.

"What is the difference between actions and desire?"Does an alcoholic not desire a drink? Or the thief desire a new plasma TV?"I desire a new plasma TV. But I'm not going to steal one to get it. Does that help?

Steely Dan :

02 Dec 2011 11:21:30pm

"what do your definitions of action and desire have to do with homosexuality?"You were failing to differentiate the two. I was helping you out. People are born with homosexual desires (although sexual desires don't manifest until later in life). Nobody can be born a thief because they can't have performed the action necessary to be called a thief before they were born.

dave :

03 Dec 2011 6:36:47pm

What motivates the thief to commit the action prior to being labelled by society as a thief? (Before you come up with some extravegant excuse, it's desire) No one is born a homosexual, as is no one born a thief. People are just born with different degrees of desire (according to your definition) for such behaviour. To blame everything on genetics (despite our very limited understanding) is irresponsible and lazy.

Gay marriage breaks down the family unit because it normalises such behaviour, encouraging people with varying degrees of desire to experiment with proven physiologically and psychologically unhealthy activity. Before you start quoting me piecemeal in order to make yourself feel intelligent, this is the opinion of the vast majority of Australians however the politically correct gay gestapo has censured anyone who speaks out of line in order to quash dissent. Oh and by the way, it's not hate speech, it's reality.

"this is the opinion of the vast majority of Australians"I very much doubt that. And even if it were true, what qualification does 'the vast majority of Australians' have? I suppose maybe those doctors and psychologists have all been bought by the "politically correct gay gestapo"...

Michael :

07 Sep 2012 4:01:20pm

What evidence do you have that people are born homosexual? The evidence that I have seen including separated twins, suggests that there is no genetic link. So what are you suggesting? The whole point is that the natural attraction of people to the opposite sex is a very strong one. For people to overcome this means there must have been a substantial change in their thinking and instinct. To assume that homosexuals are born that way and base your philosophy and our laws on that assumption is not correct. Where is your evidence?

Rhino :

06 Dec 2011 8:06:32am

@Dave

So if a "Christian" family man goes to the pub, gets drunk and knocks another random single man unconcious for no reason, he isn't the anti-social one?

In a free association test I think most people would state the violent drunk was the anti social one and not the "christian" family man. Before you get all worked up, I have actually seen something pretty close to this happen in my old footy club.

As for your comment, I asked why the bile and hatred for softer sciences? They have benefited society and will continue to do so. Thats why departments of these science continue to be funded by governments. You seemed to think they were sinecures, offices for people without the desire or the ability to do hard sciences. This is fundamentally not true, getting to the top of the academic pile in sciences is a challenge, you have to be an expert in your field and well published. Sounds like childish disdain for these academic achievements to me.

dave :

Dan, if you can't at least understand the simplest of analogies then I won't bother anymore. It is when one thinks they know everything that they stop learning. Your tedious quoting is boring me.

Rhino, your anectdotal experience is woefully irrelevant. Why would anyone consider his behaviour not anti-social? All your anecdote suggests is that you have a predetermined disdain for christianity.

My point regarding the sciences is that physical sciences, and the natural sciences to a degree, deal with absolute truths. Whereas the fringe 'sciences' involve attempts to quantify the unquantifiable and are in constant motion as to exactly what correct. However, the lay person does not make this distinction; assuming the latest social science nonsense about homosexual fruit flies is of similar objectivity and certainty to newton's laws of motion. If you are unaware of this then I suggest you undertake some research.

Rhino :

“Any behaviour that attempts to break down the basic building block of society (i.e. the nuclear family) can be considered anti social.”

and

"Rhino, anti social behaviour is anything that breaks down the family unit, regardless of your hair splitting definitions."

Which is codswallop. Policies and laws that can "strengthen" the family unit can be anti-social, like excessive family tax breaks drawing money away from needed social services, like the fire brigade. If i can think of them: things that strengthen the family unit, slightly at a disproportionate cost to others, which is anti-social, then so can you. What’s more, you haven’t demonstrated how two people marrying each other strengthens or weakens the family unit. Nor did you really demonstrate that the family unit is the most basic building block of society.

As for my anecdote, it demonstrates that what you think of anti social - marriage equality - is piddling when compared to a drunken lout and the average person would agree with me. My example was apt, because the drunk was a Christian (and when sober, a great guy). As for my disdain with Christianity, it’s not predetermined; it’s based on experience (like my story) in dealing with vocal Christians (and any flavour of the overly religious in general as well), or watching the Vatican do everything it can do to avoid its responsibilities with its kiddie fiddling priests and so on ad nauseum.

As for your last statement, you are in fact wholly incorrect. The only science that deals in absolute truths is Maths. Even then, not every branch of math deals in absolute truths. There are questions in maths that may never be solved or may never give the same answer, even an infinite number of answers. The laws of physics, as described by Newton and Einstein are not absolute, they have points were they breakdown (Newtonian physics breaks down at the sub-atomic level and quantum physics poses problems for Einstein’s theory of general relativity). Granted both Newton’s and Einstein’s laws and theories persist because they are accurate and effective within certain ranges of limits. The fact that you think they are truly accurate and certain suggest you might need to undertake some research. Until physicists determine a Grand Unifying Theory, there won’t be any absolute truths in physics. So, the social sciences deal with messy and softer data sets (incidental, much of biology deals with messy data), this doesn’t invalidate the work they produce and doesn’t justify your disdain either or the effect on your life (consider that economics is a soft science).

dave :

07 Dec 2011 8:08:35pm

Congratulations Rhino, you managed to scrape through year one physics using google. I will assume you understand the point despite your irrelevant tangents and hairsplitting. The latest nonsense from the social science faculty about homosexual fruit flies does not have the same level of certainty as Newton's laws of motion. Particularly so as the university around the corner is not going to publish research next week that is completely opposed to Newton's laws, whereas this quite often happens in the 'softer sciences' as you call them.

Again, your anecdote about the Christian family man is woefully irrelevant, as is your tangent about tax breaks and fire brigades. If you don't consider the family unit as the societal building block then try to imagine society functioning without the family unit. Further, I clearly stated why I consider homosexual marriage to be anti-social. Just because you may not agree with me does not mean I must write a thesis.

Sadly, your opinion of Christianity is based on human nature rather than the religion itself as none of the behaviour you decribed is condoned by the Christian religion. Perhaps whilst you are reading up on string theory on google you can brush up on your theology too in order to develop an informed opinion.

Rhino :

12 Dec 2011 11:45:15am

@Dave

Actually Dave, I understand your point and disagree with it and let’s keep the conversation civil please. I sourced my information about physics from two of the finest minds on the subject, Stephen Hawkings and Leonard Mlodinow, (not Wikipedia or Google) and maths from my own family who include university level mathematicians. But if you seem to like making broad generalisations and not caring who gets caught up in it.

Both these parties by the way also make it quite clear that clear and accurate statements about the findings of science are of the upmost importance when making a point. As for your comment on "nonsense" science in researching homosexual fruit flies I will observe that it is science if the scientific method is properly applied, regardless of it being maths or sociology or economics. I will also point out that the "Opera" experiment in Europe appears to have discovered neutrinos travelling faster than the speed of light, which should be impossible in the given conditions under all known laws of physics (i.e. it is contradicting all other known experiments, results and findings). So what has happened here? All the physicists are saying "wow, interesting, I wonder if there is a mistake, I wonder if I can replicate that." Not, “this is wrong and anti-science and I won’t hear further on the matter!” Do you want me to carry on Dave?

As for my points on the Christian family man and tax breaks, they are not irrelevant because they demonstrate that 1: Anti social usually means things like drunken violence, not two people celebrating and joining in life together.2: All family friendly policies are not necessarily advantageous to society. Not sure why you struggle with these points Dave.

As to your last point you stated that the basic building block of society was the nuclear family. Which is wrong, there are more basic levels to society is the individual (you know, like how individual citizens get to vote and not family units). Now are family units (I won’t use nuclear because many families are not nuclear) important to society, yes, but in no way are they the most basic or the most fundamental. Now, if as I have established that the basic building block of society is not the nuclear family, on what reasonable basis can you oppose marriage equality?

As for your swipe at me on theology, why should I worry about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin, or the problem of a good god who allows evil, when M-theory (better than string theory) is far more interesting and real world relevant. I mean, Christianity includes rules that would have compelled my father to kill me in my teens (stone me to death) for being a mildly annoying drunk. Or likes to send soldiers out of camp to purify themselves if they have ‘night time emissions’ (seriously what the heck does that mean?) and so on.

dave :

15 Dec 2011 9:26:56am

Rhino, as I alluded to earlier, there are certain areas of science that deal with higher degrees of certainty than others. These typically being the physical sciences that deal in vectors and scalars that can be accurately quantified. Whilst I admit that there are certain areas of these physical sciences that are not yet complete, there are areas that are near enough to complete areas of study and include classical physics at the super atomic level. Despite your ramblings, I am still correct in stating that studies in these areas typically involve a much higher degree of certainty than do studies in sociology about homosexual fruit flies due to both the ease of application and relevance of the scientific method in the respective scenarios. However this is all largely irrelevant as your tangent actually supports my point regarding the fallibility of science.

Your point regarding the Christian family man was irrelevant because:1. Anti social behaviour can manifest in much more subtle manners than you may be aware. It doesn't have to be your hyperbolic scenario of someone trying to beat everyone up.2. Your confusion regarding family friendly policies is nonsense. Are you admitting that homosexual marriage is not family friendly? Or are you saying it is family friendly yet not advantageous to society?3. Your example simply exposes your theological ignorance. Christianity involves attempting to live like Christ whilst simultaneously acknowledging that this is impossible as a result of the human condition. As such, any Christian is more than capable of any form of anti social behaviour. It is the attitude towards this behaviour that defines one as a Christian.

Yes, the individual may be the most basic building block of society, but society cannot function without the family. Would you prefer your child to be raised by you or by the state in an orphanage? I presume that you would prefer to raise the child yourself because you believe that you and your family, whatever the structure, could do a better job. Further, even your beloved sociology research suggests that the nuclear family, with a mother and father, is the optimum environment within which to raise this child. The question is, on what reasonable basis would you voluntarily deny this child their right to the optimum environment for growth and learning? Again, your tangents about individuals as the societal building blocks is largely attacking a peripheral straw man argument.

As for theology, google has not helped you enough with this one my friend. There are no 'laws' in Christianity so perhaps you should keep searching to find out exactly what it is that you are trying to say. If all that God nonsense ends up being true, I would much rather have an idea about theology than pretend to know about m- theory. (seriously, you were trying to get one up on me with that?)

Rhino :

15 Dec 2011 2:15:20pm

@Dave

Nice to see you finally acknowledge that science is fallible and by rare exception, describes absolutes, even in maths, unlike your earlier points stating "harder" sciences deal in absolutes. As for you obsession with homosexual fruit flies, just because you don't like the study of such soft sciences, doesn't make them irrelevant or unscientific or pointless. Advances in science, and society, have at times come from studies in which the experiment yielded unusual results outside expectations, even outside the field of study and the homosexual fruit flies could do just that. If the scientific method is properly applied it is science, so you will just have to accept that. BTW, your belief and Christianity ends being more fallible than science, because your belief has limited capacity to self correct when compared to science. This can be seen by the scientist reactions to the “opera” experiment, or the proof of plate tectonics, when compared to the bumbling actions of the Catholics in dealing with priestly abuses.

As for my story on the Christian family man, nothing hyperbolic about it, it’s a real life story. Notwithstanding I pointed out that a violent drunk far more congruent with what the average person would say is anti social, than two people marrying. What is more, an angry drunken lout is a far more pressing anti social problem to deal with than the non problem of two people celebrating life together.

As for my point on family friendly policies, I identified that not ALL family friendly policies are necessarily good for society. But you seem thing that I am against ALL family friendly policies. I think you’re the one who is confused about my meanings, probably because you’re overly focussed on the primacy of the nuclear family unit.

In regards to society, it probably would not propagate well without family units, but I am confident it would function (consider a bunch of nuns living in a remote convent, they form a small society of individuals). My point to do with society and its basic building block was to point out the logical fallacy you held that the family was the most basic building block. Not a strawman at all, unlike your additional points about the structure of the ‘ideal’ family.

As for Christianity and its laws, you don’t count the Ten Commandments as laws? Lots of Christians do, they love to tell me how fantastic and original they are. Whatever.

In closing, if you want to be Christ like, I can understand why that’s hard. I mean how does one copy this example and become a cosmic, telepathic, self parenting (hint: Jesus had two dads), Jewish zombie, who sacrificed himself to himself to pay off his own intergenerational blood debt, who wants you to love him or else he will torture you for eternity?

I think I will stick to being a regular person, who has no hate for two gay people who just want to spend their life together.

dave :

28 Dec 2011 7:11:00pm

Rhino,My point from the beginning was that science is fallible, particularly those washy areas that exist soley to peddle various 'academic' agendas. Some areas of science can be accurately quantified, i.e. I can measure the velocity of an object, whilst others cannot and contain so many variables it makes the whole process a waste of time, i.e. the gay fruit fly. Despite your google research into quantum physics, you still failed to grasp the basics of high school science; some things are easily measurable and provide hard results whilst others are not. One can attempt to apply the scientific method to whatever you want, but it's relevance will determine the accuracy of the findings. Further, to suggest that 'science' is devoid of human subjective influence displays ignorance of the scientific method. Not sure what you are getting at trying to compare Christianity and science. Are you suggesting your 'belief' is in science and mine is not? Swings and roundabouts anyone?

Your story about the drunk is irrelevant. Just because you can think of another form of anti social behaviour does not invalidate my original statement. Again, why are you still spruking family friendly policies?

To suggest that society without the family unit would operate like a convent of nuns is so laughable I won't even bother. Of course the family is an essential building block of society, to try to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Promoting homosexuality through gay marriage is corruption of this building block and should not be encouraged. (Otherwise we will all end up living like nuns in a convent...)

Regarding the laws, no there are no 'laws' in Christianity, particularly according to your definition. The suggestion that there are laws is good indicator of theological ignorance.

Rhino :

Well we have come a long way from your wild assertion on the primacy of the family unit in society and that gay marriage would break this down.

Lets recap:

"Any behaviour that attempts to break down the basic building block of society (i.e. the nuclear family) can be considered anti social."

In the many replies you have failed to demonstrate that the nuclear family is the basic building block of society. You have failed to demonstrate that the right for gay people to marry the person they love for life will break this nuclear family "building block" down. Finally, you can’t even demonstrate how this is anti social.

What you have done is factual misrepresent science (science should only deal in absolutes? Soft sciences are rubbish, excessively agenda driven, full of sinecures etc), throw a bunch of light weight ad hominem comments at me (scraped through high school science indeed!).

As for beliefs and science, the only belief I have in science is that it is a fantastic method for exploring and learning. Science, it works. I don’t believe in your self parenting Jewish zombie.

Finally at what stage did I promote homosexuality? From what you said, it appears to me that you are the sort of person for whom the existence of homosexuals offends you.

As for laws in Christianity, I can read the bible, I suppose that makes me theologically illiterate. Lots of laws in that book, sure these laws look like the laws of the Code of Hammurabi…. I guess these laws are in the Old Testament and therefore don’t count (like most of the bibles gay hating bits…).

dave :

17 Jan 2012 6:35:44pm

Rhino,

The burden of evidence to justify a proposition falls on those who propose change. You propose homosexual marriage, thus it is upon you that the burden of evidence falls. According to your definition, you have similarly failed to 'demonstrate' anything as you have neither managed to convince me nor prove anything. Your rather futile attempts to negate the primacy of the family unit by comparing society to a convent of nuns were ridiculous.

Your ignorance regarding the accuracy of various sciences is again laughable. All you have 'demonstrated' is that you do not have a grasp of the relevance of the scientific method in its application in the various sciences. Any first year sociology or psychology student can tell you that they can make their 'science' demonstrate just about anything they want.

It is only those who have had no direct experience in anything scientific who believe in the complete infallibility of science, as you appear to have. I have not misrepresented science as you have claimed, rather I have provided a realistic and pragmatic appraisal of the abilities of the various sciences to explain the world around us. If your scientific experience is so limited as to leave you with such ignorance then I suggest you do further research.

If you promote homosexual marriage, you promote homosexuality. Similarly, science and religion are mutually exclusive only to those who maintain ignorance in at least one of these areas of study. Finally, there are no laws in Christianity, despite your futile attempts to prove otherwise...

rob1966 :

01 Dec 2011 1:02:38pm

Wow, you have obviously done extensive study into the basis of sexuality, the genetic construct of all living creatures, and completed numerous Phd studies into the medical sciences. I assume this because you state your belief so emphatically, yet without any substantiation at all.

Of course, the fact that your belief is not supported by any medical evidence, scientific study, or credible specialist or scientist is a sligth concern.

But hey, good on you for standing up and being willing to be the butt of ridicule.

Rhino :

01 Dec 2011 1:40:15pm

As with any form of anti-social behaviour, religion exists at varying degrees upon a continuum for each person. No one is born religious, as is no one born an alcoholic or a thief. Society should not be promoting such behaviour by advocating religious marriage as it should not promote alcoholism by attempting to normalise it to appease those who claim to be born alcoholic. There is no scientific evidence to suggest otherwise as theology and the like are not scientific areas of study; despite many people trying to pass them off as science. In short, it is our responsibility as a civilised society to avoid the normalisation of such behaviour.

Rhino :

02 Dec 2011 9:04:54am

@DaveOverly simplifying things abit there Dave. First, you assume in nature that this homosexual activity is monogamous. It isn't.

Next, homosexuality is an expression of genetics and development of the individual or a combination of both genetics and development. Thus for an individual it may be a dead end, but not for a population of many variants.

Finally, in combination with the above genetic and developmental point: Some expressions of homosexuality actual demonstrate that opposite sex siblings have powerful expression of their own genes or development. I.e. a homosexual male may have a heterosexual sister or sisters who is/are very attractive and will pass on her/their genes (and hence his genes will be passed on, but not through his own failed couplings).

Pam :

30 Nov 2011 6:50:20pm

I am a heterosexual, married woman, with four children. So probably, on the face of it, I wouldn't seem to have much in common with Rodney Croome.But I read his words with much interest, and sympathy. I believe homosexuals should have the 'right' to marry the person they love, just as I've been given the 'right' to marry. Because I am the 'right' sexual orientation, in the eyes of society, this right is a given for me. But not for him. So unfair. It takes two loving people to successfully raise a family and, if they are the same gender, surely the quality of their parenting is the important issue, not the issue of whether they are the 'right' mix. I am a Christian and cannot believe that my God would discriminate on such a basis.

Paul :

Don't say you are a Christian if you don't believe the words of Jesus in the Bible:

[made into a conversation format for easier reading]

Pharisees (testing Jesus): “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

Jesus' reply: “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

Pharisees' answer: “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

Jesus' reply (regarding divorce): “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,”

Jesus' reply (regarding MARRIAGE)“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

[from Mark 10:2-9]

I hate it when people call themselves Christian and don't think anything of what Jesus said. Love thy neighbour is not the central tenet of Christianity, love thy God is. If you love God you obey his teaching (John 14:23-24).

Erebus :

02 Dec 2011 8:40:54am

Please don't quote out of context. Any single verse from the Bible can be used to argue one point of view and it's opposing if taken out of context. God did not invent marriage, because the very term came from The Greeks and Romans, who often had several wives, concubines, and often engaged in same sex relationships for physical gratification. Sex with the opposite gender was merely for pro-creation.

To further justify, many Mammals use same-sex relationships for physical pleasure, but mate only with the opposite gender to pro-create. Would your version of a Christian God allow this? According to you, no. Life is far more complex than man can currently define, as, I believe, is God. The Bible was written 1500 years ago by people who had nothing to do with Christ the man, selected from many various versions of text.

A loving God would never discriminate the way you "Christians" do. By the very definition, a Christian should love all mankind unconditionally. Think on that, please.

Martin Snigg :

02 Dec 2011 10:43:19am

Erebus you're free to dismiss the authority of the Bible, but you're not free to dismiss the authority of those millions who have invested their millions studying, interpreting, proclaiming and teaching what it is says - and the teaching office of the Church that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit regulates such practices.

What Paul quoted was as straightforward as language can be. Skepticism about the usefulness of language to communicate meaning is a reason for you to remain silent - to exempt yourself from debate completely- not post in here. If you want to be listened to that is not the way to go.

As for your claim about the provenance of the Biblical books - it is grotesquely false. We live in the age of google so there is no excuse.

The textual science done on the Bible over the last couple of centuries is over - we have what was originally written. We have fragments of Scripture written in the first century AD, complete letters soon after - and virtually entire Bibles that you can go and look at behind glass e.g. Codex Vaticanus transcribed 200 years before you say it was.

The books of the Bible were written and shared among Christians at during the lifetime of Jesus' disciples, those who met and followed Jesus during his ministry - these accounts were excepted as authoritative by these people and became the Bible. Distortions were simply ignored. In the same way a biography of Julia Gillard winning Wimbledon would be ignored today.

Erebus :

02 Dec 2011 1:55:49pm

I was actually referring to the Bible as we know it today, not the actual individual books that were included at the Council of Nicea. I don not deny some books were written by the Disciples themselves, and do not dismiss, as you claim to say I do, the Bible as a whole. I merely mean that it's teachings cannot be taken litterally in today's age, as the times are different. The moral message remains strong, and is one I live by, being "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".

That shows simple, honest, true love and tolerance for all mankind, something many "Christians" fail to do, misquoting scripture and claims Vatican Authority over the vast population of the world. I do not recognise the authority of anyone who claims to be God's represntative on Earth, for God needs no representation. God is love, truth, and life. I need no church or priest to worship God.

Martin Snigg :

05 Dec 2011 4:47:14pm

I hear that repeated alot. To love we have to know what is in a person's best interest, as Christians we say it is God Himself. As Christian we know Jesus revealed things we wouldn't know by natural reason. Now the Christian tradition is unanimous about how our bodies can be used in sexual relations. Eve Tushnet and John Heard for example are two prominent same sex attracted Catholics who live out the teaching. They don't doubt that sublimating their desires as the Church teaches (with the help of the sacraments, charity and prayer) is astonishingly humanising. They know in their hearts the boundary around sex isn't arbitrary.

Too many speak as if they have no understanding, least of all acquaintance with the position they argue against. This is the very definition of bigotry.

Martin Snigg :

02 Dec 2011 2:49:50pm

Erebus - OK you're not Christian, yours is a kind of religion of one. As long as you know that teaching is at odds with Jesus' who certainly did claim to be God's represented and more - God Himself the second person of the Trinity. Don't be surprised if you don't get many followers - or that your teaching doesn't out live you.

Now to love and be tolerant you have to know what these words mean - I'm going to go with Jesus' definitions and demonstrations - as will most people Erebus because they will wonder by what authority you claim to be able to define them.

Steely Dan :

02 Dec 2011 2:21:43pm

"but you're not free to dismiss the authority of those millions who have invested their millions studying, interpreting, proclaiming and teaching what it is says - and the teaching office of the Church that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit regulates such practices."Of course you can! Their work should be subject to the same level of scrutiny everyone else's is.

"The books of the Bible were written and shared among Christians at during the lifetime of Jesus' disciples, those who met and followed Jesus during his ministry"That's plausible. We don't know whether it happened though.

Martin Snigg :

02 Dec 2011 3:02:13pm

@Steely Dan - the point was that Erebus was claiming to be able to properly interpret Scripture - by what authority? It would be like me claiming an authority to reinterpret the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Who would listen to me? If I reject quantum physics as a superstition of theoretical physicists, fine, but I have to remain silent when those who have spent their lives trying to understand it speak.

When you say plausible you ought to add that it is the deliverance of consensus mainstream historical scholarship. And that if we choose to be skeptical of historians work 'we don't know whether it happened' won't do without serious evidence supporting alternative explanations. I mean we still have to do history.

Erebus :

02 Dec 2011 4:15:22pm

I need some sort of permission to interpret scripture? I'm guessing you are a Teacher or Preist, perhaps both. Either way, you have a clearly biased viewpoint towards other's ability to interpret a book.

I have no intent of beginning a new religion, in fact I despise organised religion, much like Christ did. Something about the man who prays quietly on his knees at home, rather than the man who prays loudly in a church... I can undertsnad your indoctrinated viewpoint, and I respect it, however, that doesn't mena i can not find it misinformed or incorrect.

Aside from that, it's not just Christianity that is the problem, but also Islam, Judasim, and many others. Buddhism seems to be the only religion that preaches true tolerance, love, and understand of one's environment. And before you ask, no, I'm not a Buddhist.

Martin Snigg :

04 Dec 2011 11:38:33am

No. You just can't claim the kind of authority to determine context and hermeneutics when it contradicts the traditional scholarship and traditional teaching authority of the experts. Which is what you were doing. The Church is an actual thing Erebus. Institutional science with its guilds and practices is something similar. You have permission to interpret scientific claims all you want but I'm just saying: you won't persuade anyone. We're not children anymore - cooing and babbling won't delight people like it did back then.

Christ said 'I did not come to do away with the Law (Judaism) but to fulfil it' 'Not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass away'

Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

What was Jesus doing in Jerusalem in the Last Supper? Or why did he say to listen to the Scribes and Pharisees?

Matt 23: 2-3 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

And when Jesus taught and read from Torah in the Synagogues and visited the Temple? Healed and demonstrated his power? When he was so loud it got him killed?

What you are implicitly doing is claiming a superiority over Jesus to interpret Scripture. You are either right or wrong but please understand what you're doing. If Jesus didn't preach true tolerance and love what was it? And how do you know that these ought to be the criteria by which to judge the truth of a religion? How do you know what is true? Do you use that same standard to judge the historical claims of Christianity? Jesus either rose from the dead or he didn't.

A couple of philosophers put this together. http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num9.htm

Steely Dan :

02 Dec 2011 4:15:37pm

"the point was that Erebus was claiming to be able to properly interpret Scripture"Judging from his comments, I don't think he was making any textual claims whatsoever.

"but I have to remain silent when those who have spent their lives trying to understand it speak"And when it's your turn to speak, you could (politely) disagree. It may be that nobody will listen, but you still have the right to criticise any claim. Free speech is not an impediment to science.

"you ought to add that it is the deliverance of consensus mainstream historical scholarship"There's a claim you could give a source for.

Martin Snigg :

Erebus :

02 Dec 2011 2:55:00pm

Also, I want to add that any "Church" that dares to tell me what I can or cannot eat, drink, or do with my own, hard earned property, is not of God. FYI, I was born a Jew, baptised a Catholic, raised a Presbyterian, re-baptised a Mormon, and maybe that explains why, although my belief in God remains, my belief in a Christian religion, or any other man-made mythology, does not.

Religions claim ownership of many pagan rituals and days. The man called Christ was not born in December, but in March, and that alone causes most Christians headaches. I have done 15 years of reseach on this subject, though with no formal "degree" am not a recognised authority.

Oh, and as for google, all article show the 70-100AD dates for the gospels as a best estimate only, not historical fact. Nothing written in that book has much basis in actual, provable scientific historical fact.

That doesn't lessen it's message, although, if you feel the need to keep justifying your belief in it's accuracy, maybe you need to question the strength og your belief. It all begins with doubt, and leads to enlightenment.

How does having a wide experience necessarily prevent you from choosing well? Most today clamour for choice and variety, testing everything. What philosophy do you bring to this wide experience? We're you 'indoctrinated' into that? If not why not? and how?

Obviously people can err, I've demonstrated that above in your misunderstanding of Jesus' view about 'organised religion' (I don't know what disorganised religion looks like by the way) - why couldn't it be - after having an experience of your own fallibility, that that could be shared by groups for all kinds of reasons?

Our task is to determine what is actually true. My brief experience of your knowledge of Christianity tells me that 15 yrs of work you say you've put in has been rather superficial. Perhaps start with that link re: The Resurrection.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but you understand I have a duty to at least present what Christianity actually is accurately. And leave the rest to you and God.

That later dating of the Gospels is based on philosophical presuppositions, eg Jesus could not have predicted the destruction of the Temple! (seriously that is how some scholars reason) but taking that late date - those who knew Jesus personally or at least listen to him preach or saw him heal were still alive when they were circulated. In any case it is too short a time for legends and distortions to be allowed to circulate. See Bauckham Youtube 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'

Scooby :

04 Dec 2011 8:51:25pm

A wide experience will help you make choices, but as a Christian, it is experience in subjectivity and is not based in measured reality. So therefore the view of another is equal and relevant based on their own subjectivity.

I take issue with the claim that you can present "what Christianity actually is accurately." You may present your own interpretations accurately, most of which are based on your "faith", but they are not absolute.

The bible has as much authority in this world as people are prepared to place in it. It has good stories on the way to treat humans in this world, and those have become the cornerstones for the laws of this country. We have also evolved as a human species with our knowledge of ourselves, and we gain from actual experiences of living here and now.

Erebus :

05 Dec 2011 2:27:56pm

Martin: What Scooby is saying is that whilst Christian Historians and Philosophers can argue "fact", so can Islamic Historians and Philosophers, amoung many others. Faith in something is a choice, perhaps a basic human need to believe we are something more than this life.

I'm a Behaviour Analyst and Psychologist, and my research into religion shows it is created by man, for man, and no evidence of God exists.

Religions do give us the foundation for much of our legal system, as did it for Ancient Roman and Egypt. They believed something very different from us.

Your interpretations do not make them fact, regardless of how many people can back them up. Aside from the Bible itself, there is no proof that any of the events listed within, or even the people themselves, were anything more than fiction.

Again, that does not lessen the messages contained within. This converstation was taken away from its foundation, which is that Homosexuals should have the same rights to a life-long union as do Heterosexuals.

Many Christians, in fact, worldwide, the vast majority of Christians, atheists and others agree Marriage should be redefiend to mean "the union of one person to another, excluding all others, until death do you part" (Unless your Mormon, in which case, marriage is eternal). I agree with this, and would be honour to be my Best friend's best man, when he can finally marry his boyfriend in Australia.

Martin Snigg :

05 Dec 2011 4:39:06pm

Erebus, if the New Tesament is a work of fiction it anticipates the next instance of the genre by 1600 years with the invention of the novel - modern realistic fiction. Skeptics are forced by literary criticism to accept that fact. The most prominent you'll find, Richard Carrier, in debate with William Lane Craig admitted that they rank as works of genius comparable to Shakespeare. Which is much more implausible than that Jesus inspired these men to proclaim what actually happened in the face of persecution and eventual martyrdom.

People who really wrestle with the manuscripts often begin agnostics or atheists and come out Christians. I'd just have to urge you to do some serious historical work on them. In the age of Google you have a great advantage.

An equal determination to adhere to commonly accepted principles of historical scholarship will rule out Islam. The Eastern religions do not claim historical origins and can't be evaluated on that basis. Christianity for this reason is a very vulnerable religion. And uniquely right or wrong given that no other religion claims God became man. No one has ever spoken like Jesus.

Martin Snigg :

06 Dec 2011 2:27:02pm

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=292NTf1cCNw

Reason and faith aren't antagonists. Faith is loyalty based on a reasonable probability.

If your friend asked you to meet you at the movies at 2pm and you replied you needed a promissory note for the petrol, video evidence of him having left his house, and a signed contract that he would be there, before you said yes. Would you still have a friendship? Wouldn't it be rational to trust him based on prior evidence of his trustworthiness?

The same with faith in Christ- are there reasons to trust? An overwhelming amount, from where you are perhaps starting with historical and philosophical reasons. For others it might have been starting with a direct experience of Christian love, or direct experience of God in their lives - from which historical and philosophical support follows after. Edward Feser is well known example of a philosopher who converted from atheism to Christianity.

Steely Dan :

Scooby :

10 Dec 2011 7:21:29am

I have read the philosophers link, which I found quite amateur. There are obvious answers to some of the questions raised and obvious flaws in some of the answers given.

Re your example: I would have faith in my friend meeting me based on the fact that he is real and living now, we have spoken and made an agreement, and my previous knowledge of his actions. I have reason to trust him, as my experiences are real with him

But I dont have reason to believe something will happen in the future ie heaven, as there are no real experiences to ground this. That has to be a matter of faith alone.

Michael :

07 Sep 2012 4:36:44pm

Pam,I am sorry to hear you say that. If you are a Christian you should have respect for the words of Jesus and the Apostles. Obviously women have raised children on their own or in conjunction with others throughout history. There is no discrimination in God's word between people but disrepect and sin against God obviously, cannot be tolerated by God. There is no discrimination in correctly defining marriage as between one man and one woman. It is simply the nature of sexual reproduction. Jesus clearly states that fornicators (which includes homosexuals) are lead astray by their own imagination. They are not created that way. I am yet to see any scientific evidence to the effect that homosexuality has any genetic basis, to contradict this. God is more than happy for people to love one another but we all have the right for marriage to be defined correctly, not based on artificial insemination or any other artificial construct.

On the Wider Web

There is something degenerate about the politics of Greek debt. It is as though nothing has been learned in 2,000 years - as if the left had forgotten the powers of capital and imperialism and the right cannot make a distinction between the financial economy and productivity.

From the beginning, polling was in the business to make headlines, and that is pretty much what it continues to do today. The seeming accuracy of results to the tenth of a percentage point doesn't stand up to basic methodological scrutiny, nor does the content of the questions themselves. If the devil is in the details, the details about religion polls are devilishly difficult to trust.

Best of abc.net.au

Boutique cheese imports up

Australian boutique cheesemakers say the growing levels of imports in their field make it hard to compete.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.